take home quiz 001
GIO CELINO N. DEL ROSARIO
2016-89617
UP –NCPAG
PA 299.1B
Take Home Exam (Answers)
I.
Multiple Choice
1.
C
2.
D
3.
C
4.
C
5.
D
6.
C
7.
C
8.
C
9.
E
10. A
II. True or False (Part 1)
1.
True
2.
True
3.
True
4.
False
5.
True
6.
True
7.
True
8.
True
9.
False
10. False
III. True or False (Part 2)
1.
False
2.
True
3.
True
4.
False
5.
True
IV. Supply the Answer
1.a. Non –probability
1.b. Accidental or Convenience
sampling
2.a. Non –probability
2.b. Snowball or Referral
sampling
3.a. Probability
3.b. Population
3.c. Registered Homes & the
Children living on the 25
homes selected
3.d. Children residing on
registered homes for street
children
Page 1 of 6
V. Essay
1. Briefly discuss how we know what we know.
According to Earl Babbie (2011), we know what we know through
ordinary human inquiry, tradition, and authority.
Ordinary human inquiry is rooted on our desire to understand how
things work and use that understanding to predict the future. This may be as
informal as mere observation or as stringent and rigorous as a formal
research.
Tradition and authority are second –hand sources of knowledge we
accept that provide us information without us having to participate in the
process of deriving the understanding and reaching its coupled conclusion/
generalization. Tradition is what has been established from the past that has
survived with its own practical and convenient merits. On the other hand,
information we derive from authority are the things we accept due to the
credibility of the source relative to the information.
2. When choosing a research topic, briefly discuss at least five important
concerns, which we, as researchers, have to consider thoughtfully.
As researchers, we need to consider the following, among others, in
selecting our research topics: interest, level of expertise, availability of data,
topic relevance, and ethics.
First, in choosing research topics, we have to consider what interests.
Our own interest on any given subject will give us the fuel and the drive that
motivates us in pursuing and finishing the required study. A kind personal
attachment to our topic enhances our desire in providing answers to research
questions.
However, mere interest on a topic may be inadequate and may be
unable to carry the necessary research operations and procedures.
Researchers should consider carrying out studies that is matched and related
with the second item to be considered – their level of expertise. Not only will
it already serve as their working background even before they formally start
making their paper, but it would also provide a higher level of credibility on
whatever conclusion they are able to generate from their researches.
Availability of data should also be taken into account. From
establishing the need to undertake the study (Literature Review) to the actual
implementation of the research design (survey, experiment, archival analysis),
researchers have to assess whether data that can be derived in order to build
any specific case. A topic and design may be excellent if the availability data
to be analysed cannot be obtained, there is no use for it. Of course it should
be mentioned that lack of available data in previous literature may be
disheartening, but it should not hinder any researcher from pursuing the
study. Moreover, there may be situations when an underdeveloped topic could
be another source of motivation since the impact of the research to be
undertaken would have a greater value on the field.
Fourth, the research topic should be relevant to the field and intended
audience. Relevance to the field simply means that the paper would form part
of the continuous evolution and development of the topic undertaken.
Researchers need to pursue a certain study with an eye towards publication;
that whenever future scholars would research on the same or related topic, the
researcher’s paper would be cited. In a grander scale, the researcher should
consider her/his research topic to be her/his legacy. On the other hand,
relevance to the intended audience is about the importance of the paper to the
intended audience. Be it a professor that requires students to pass a term
paper related to Public Administration, or the Congress of the Philippines
that, invoking the Constitution, requires the submission of an Annual
Financial Report, the intended audience should in some way or another be
satiated of a want or a need of a knowledge that has yet to exist. There are
times even, when the need for a certain knowledge is not known to the
intended audience until it’s already staring at their faces.
Lastly, researchers need to consider the ethical issues attached to their
chosen research topic. There is a baseline of ethical issues that every
researcher need to face whenever they choose a certain research topic. Most
of it is concerned in the operationalization of the concepts being tested –how
the information is obtained, plagiarism, rigging the results etc.. But there are
certain research topics that have glaring ethical issues on their own. For
example, measuring the level of efficiency of extra-judicial killings in
minimizing street crimes, assessing the effectiveness of underground
marketing of Misoprostol (abortifacient) in the Philippines.
3. In your own words, explain the difference between validity and reliability,
as well as the difference between the two types of validity.
Reliability is the consistency of the results derived from the research
operations used in the study. Essentially, if the procedures were made again
and again, they would essentially produce the same results. Validity, on the
other hand, is the consistency of the concept established with the designed
and implemented procedures. For instance, if the paper is evaluating love, the
design and procedures created for evaluation should not be revolving around
the measurement of hate or grief or kindness.
Generally, the two types of validity are internal validity and external
validity. Internal validity is the consistency of the drawn conclusion to the
topic of the study. It is drawn on making sure that the conclusion made on the
dependent variable is indeed rooted from the identified independent variable
and not some other item which were not able to be factored in.in contrast,
external validity is the consistency of the drawn conclusion/ generalizations
with the rest of the world (other researches of the same/related topic).
4. Discuss how you can improve validity and reliability in case-study
designs.
According to Yin (2003), there are many ways researchers can improve
the validity and reliability of their case-study designs
In designing the research, a general theory should be tapped into for
single-case studies while a replication logic should be utilized for multiplecase types. Both tactics improve external validity.
Tapping into a general theory as a part of the design of a single-case
study would put the conclusions/ generalizations which can be derived from
the study in equal wavelength with other studies that employ the same theory.
Replication logic is pretty much the same as the first tactic but is more
“robust” since it is applied to multiple stand-alone case studies converging to
make a cross-case conclusion.
In the collection of the data for the research, the use of a case study
protocol and development of a case study database would enhance the
reliability of a case-study. To improve construct validity, on the other hand,
researchers should employ using multiple sources of evidence and establish a
chain of evidence.
Utilization of a case study protocol would maintain the comparability
and consistency of date gather while the development of a case study
database would make sure that information used in the case study is available
for replication. Multiple sources of evidence would create a multidimensional conclusion based on the verged themes from different sources. A
chain of evidence would actually establish the integrity and credibility of the
gathered information.
In data analysis, in order to improve internal validity, researchers may
match patterns, establish a well-structured explanation with sufficient
support, pre-empt arguments against the drawn conclusion, and utilize logic
models.
5. Define plagiarism and briefly discuss three strategies how we can avoid
plagiarism
Plagiarism is essentially stealing. It is the use of another individual/
entity’s work or idea, whether to implicitly or explicitly pass off the same as
one’s own or to fail employing correct citation. Intent does not matter since a
researcher, at the very onset, is expected to practically exhaust past literature
related to his/her topic. Researchers need to remember that “When in doubt,
cite.”
Three strategies that are commonly used to avoid plagiarism are
quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
Quoting is the direct “copy paste”, word per word, of an author’s
actual text in a researcher’s own paper. This strategy is most effectively used
when the string of words created by an author magnificently captures any
given idea that to paraphrase or summarize the same would be an insult to the
author’s idea’s substance and form.
Paraphrasing is used through getting the core of the idea or work being
referred to and converting the text (not the substance) into one’s own. Like
paraphrasing, summarizing is also the taking of the core idea and packaging it
on a different form that is made the by researcher who used the core idea or
work
Regardless of what strategy is used, whether through quoting,
paraphrasing or summarizing, it is essential that proper citation be made,
especially on schools and institutions that place plagiarism as the 8th deadly
sin.
6. Discuss why a review of the literature must be undertaken before
designing and implementing our research project.
It is important that a review of related literature be undertaken before
designing and implementing research project to, foremost, share the results of
previous studies. It is important to give credit to studies that placed the
research topic into where it is now in order to properly design a research
model which could generate results that are comparable with them.
Comparability is a cornerstone value of research papers to which researchers
need to base their research design in order to place their work among the
literature and form part of the ongoing dialogues in the field. The review of
related literature further provides a framework from where researchers may
base upon. Also, it improves methodology as it can enhances what an
individual person’s perspective; literature, especially those which comes from
journals, have been well established and accepted to provide acceptable
results. Most importantly, a review of the related literature fortifies the need
for the research as the review would formally place the research topic into
filling a gap that may have been overlooked or have been underdeveloped by
previous research on the field.
7. As students and working professionals, why do you think we need to learn
how to propose or design a research? Discuss the real-life application of
PA299.1.
As students, we need to learn how to propose or design a research in
order to be able to contribute to the field of Public Administration. It would
be a waste to be learning about the field without being able to contribute in its
evolution and development simply because we are not able to properly relay
the idea/ work we are able to bring about. Knowing how to propose and
design a research passes on a more formal way of presenting an idea which
means it is a standardized form that could stand alone from its author. This is
essential in any field because a document that could stand on its own, without
the constant need for the author to explain the proposition and the design,
reflects clarity and order.
As working professionals though, it goes beyond formality, clarity, and
order. Knowing how to propose and design a research answers to the need for
a constant upgrading or fine tuning of what we know in order to promote
public welfare. For example, within the mandate of the Commission on Audit
is the performance of Value-For-Money audits that evaluate whether the
public is getting the intended results from certain government projects. Valuefor-Money audit, compared to a more standardized form of assurance
auditing, requires the preparation of a proposition to be approved by the
Commission Proper. Once approved, there needs to be a clear cut audit
program (design) in order to stay on track to the purpose of the audit
(research).
2016-89617
UP –NCPAG
PA 299.1B
Take Home Exam (Answers)
I.
Multiple Choice
1.
C
2.
D
3.
C
4.
C
5.
D
6.
C
7.
C
8.
C
9.
E
10. A
II. True or False (Part 1)
1.
True
2.
True
3.
True
4.
False
5.
True
6.
True
7.
True
8.
True
9.
False
10. False
III. True or False (Part 2)
1.
False
2.
True
3.
True
4.
False
5.
True
IV. Supply the Answer
1.a. Non –probability
1.b. Accidental or Convenience
sampling
2.a. Non –probability
2.b. Snowball or Referral
sampling
3.a. Probability
3.b. Population
3.c. Registered Homes & the
Children living on the 25
homes selected
3.d. Children residing on
registered homes for street
children
Page 1 of 6
V. Essay
1. Briefly discuss how we know what we know.
According to Earl Babbie (2011), we know what we know through
ordinary human inquiry, tradition, and authority.
Ordinary human inquiry is rooted on our desire to understand how
things work and use that understanding to predict the future. This may be as
informal as mere observation or as stringent and rigorous as a formal
research.
Tradition and authority are second –hand sources of knowledge we
accept that provide us information without us having to participate in the
process of deriving the understanding and reaching its coupled conclusion/
generalization. Tradition is what has been established from the past that has
survived with its own practical and convenient merits. On the other hand,
information we derive from authority are the things we accept due to the
credibility of the source relative to the information.
2. When choosing a research topic, briefly discuss at least five important
concerns, which we, as researchers, have to consider thoughtfully.
As researchers, we need to consider the following, among others, in
selecting our research topics: interest, level of expertise, availability of data,
topic relevance, and ethics.
First, in choosing research topics, we have to consider what interests.
Our own interest on any given subject will give us the fuel and the drive that
motivates us in pursuing and finishing the required study. A kind personal
attachment to our topic enhances our desire in providing answers to research
questions.
However, mere interest on a topic may be inadequate and may be
unable to carry the necessary research operations and procedures.
Researchers should consider carrying out studies that is matched and related
with the second item to be considered – their level of expertise. Not only will
it already serve as their working background even before they formally start
making their paper, but it would also provide a higher level of credibility on
whatever conclusion they are able to generate from their researches.
Availability of data should also be taken into account. From
establishing the need to undertake the study (Literature Review) to the actual
implementation of the research design (survey, experiment, archival analysis),
researchers have to assess whether data that can be derived in order to build
any specific case. A topic and design may be excellent if the availability data
to be analysed cannot be obtained, there is no use for it. Of course it should
be mentioned that lack of available data in previous literature may be
disheartening, but it should not hinder any researcher from pursuing the
study. Moreover, there may be situations when an underdeveloped topic could
be another source of motivation since the impact of the research to be
undertaken would have a greater value on the field.
Fourth, the research topic should be relevant to the field and intended
audience. Relevance to the field simply means that the paper would form part
of the continuous evolution and development of the topic undertaken.
Researchers need to pursue a certain study with an eye towards publication;
that whenever future scholars would research on the same or related topic, the
researcher’s paper would be cited. In a grander scale, the researcher should
consider her/his research topic to be her/his legacy. On the other hand,
relevance to the intended audience is about the importance of the paper to the
intended audience. Be it a professor that requires students to pass a term
paper related to Public Administration, or the Congress of the Philippines
that, invoking the Constitution, requires the submission of an Annual
Financial Report, the intended audience should in some way or another be
satiated of a want or a need of a knowledge that has yet to exist. There are
times even, when the need for a certain knowledge is not known to the
intended audience until it’s already staring at their faces.
Lastly, researchers need to consider the ethical issues attached to their
chosen research topic. There is a baseline of ethical issues that every
researcher need to face whenever they choose a certain research topic. Most
of it is concerned in the operationalization of the concepts being tested –how
the information is obtained, plagiarism, rigging the results etc.. But there are
certain research topics that have glaring ethical issues on their own. For
example, measuring the level of efficiency of extra-judicial killings in
minimizing street crimes, assessing the effectiveness of underground
marketing of Misoprostol (abortifacient) in the Philippines.
3. In your own words, explain the difference between validity and reliability,
as well as the difference between the two types of validity.
Reliability is the consistency of the results derived from the research
operations used in the study. Essentially, if the procedures were made again
and again, they would essentially produce the same results. Validity, on the
other hand, is the consistency of the concept established with the designed
and implemented procedures. For instance, if the paper is evaluating love, the
design and procedures created for evaluation should not be revolving around
the measurement of hate or grief or kindness.
Generally, the two types of validity are internal validity and external
validity. Internal validity is the consistency of the drawn conclusion to the
topic of the study. It is drawn on making sure that the conclusion made on the
dependent variable is indeed rooted from the identified independent variable
and not some other item which were not able to be factored in.in contrast,
external validity is the consistency of the drawn conclusion/ generalizations
with the rest of the world (other researches of the same/related topic).
4. Discuss how you can improve validity and reliability in case-study
designs.
According to Yin (2003), there are many ways researchers can improve
the validity and reliability of their case-study designs
In designing the research, a general theory should be tapped into for
single-case studies while a replication logic should be utilized for multiplecase types. Both tactics improve external validity.
Tapping into a general theory as a part of the design of a single-case
study would put the conclusions/ generalizations which can be derived from
the study in equal wavelength with other studies that employ the same theory.
Replication logic is pretty much the same as the first tactic but is more
“robust” since it is applied to multiple stand-alone case studies converging to
make a cross-case conclusion.
In the collection of the data for the research, the use of a case study
protocol and development of a case study database would enhance the
reliability of a case-study. To improve construct validity, on the other hand,
researchers should employ using multiple sources of evidence and establish a
chain of evidence.
Utilization of a case study protocol would maintain the comparability
and consistency of date gather while the development of a case study
database would make sure that information used in the case study is available
for replication. Multiple sources of evidence would create a multidimensional conclusion based on the verged themes from different sources. A
chain of evidence would actually establish the integrity and credibility of the
gathered information.
In data analysis, in order to improve internal validity, researchers may
match patterns, establish a well-structured explanation with sufficient
support, pre-empt arguments against the drawn conclusion, and utilize logic
models.
5. Define plagiarism and briefly discuss three strategies how we can avoid
plagiarism
Plagiarism is essentially stealing. It is the use of another individual/
entity’s work or idea, whether to implicitly or explicitly pass off the same as
one’s own or to fail employing correct citation. Intent does not matter since a
researcher, at the very onset, is expected to practically exhaust past literature
related to his/her topic. Researchers need to remember that “When in doubt,
cite.”
Three strategies that are commonly used to avoid plagiarism are
quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
Quoting is the direct “copy paste”, word per word, of an author’s
actual text in a researcher’s own paper. This strategy is most effectively used
when the string of words created by an author magnificently captures any
given idea that to paraphrase or summarize the same would be an insult to the
author’s idea’s substance and form.
Paraphrasing is used through getting the core of the idea or work being
referred to and converting the text (not the substance) into one’s own. Like
paraphrasing, summarizing is also the taking of the core idea and packaging it
on a different form that is made the by researcher who used the core idea or
work
Regardless of what strategy is used, whether through quoting,
paraphrasing or summarizing, it is essential that proper citation be made,
especially on schools and institutions that place plagiarism as the 8th deadly
sin.
6. Discuss why a review of the literature must be undertaken before
designing and implementing our research project.
It is important that a review of related literature be undertaken before
designing and implementing research project to, foremost, share the results of
previous studies. It is important to give credit to studies that placed the
research topic into where it is now in order to properly design a research
model which could generate results that are comparable with them.
Comparability is a cornerstone value of research papers to which researchers
need to base their research design in order to place their work among the
literature and form part of the ongoing dialogues in the field. The review of
related literature further provides a framework from where researchers may
base upon. Also, it improves methodology as it can enhances what an
individual person’s perspective; literature, especially those which comes from
journals, have been well established and accepted to provide acceptable
results. Most importantly, a review of the related literature fortifies the need
for the research as the review would formally place the research topic into
filling a gap that may have been overlooked or have been underdeveloped by
previous research on the field.
7. As students and working professionals, why do you think we need to learn
how to propose or design a research? Discuss the real-life application of
PA299.1.
As students, we need to learn how to propose or design a research in
order to be able to contribute to the field of Public Administration. It would
be a waste to be learning about the field without being able to contribute in its
evolution and development simply because we are not able to properly relay
the idea/ work we are able to bring about. Knowing how to propose and
design a research passes on a more formal way of presenting an idea which
means it is a standardized form that could stand alone from its author. This is
essential in any field because a document that could stand on its own, without
the constant need for the author to explain the proposition and the design,
reflects clarity and order.
As working professionals though, it goes beyond formality, clarity, and
order. Knowing how to propose and design a research answers to the need for
a constant upgrading or fine tuning of what we know in order to promote
public welfare. For example, within the mandate of the Commission on Audit
is the performance of Value-For-Money audits that evaluate whether the
public is getting the intended results from certain government projects. Valuefor-Money audit, compared to a more standardized form of assurance
auditing, requires the preparation of a proposition to be approved by the
Commission Proper. Once approved, there needs to be a clear cut audit
program (design) in order to stay on track to the purpose of the audit
(research).